Poetic Justice: Those Cheering for the Assassination of Trump Cast Themselves as Shakespearean Villains

Apparently, those directing “Shakespeare” in the Dark felt that embarrassing the President of the United States by making a travesty of one of The Bard’s epic tragedies more or less added Shakespeare’s blessing to their political views. Taken at face value, the production is only cats dancing on a piano, but, on another level, the piano turns out to be electrified and the cats aren’t dancing, they’re frying. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar was a conservative drama for its day, and today’s Marxists have hung themselves with their own triumphant ignorance.

First of all, any production that leads an audience to cheer for the assassination of Caesar via President Trump casts the audience as Shakespearean villains of epic proportions. The directors who have obscured Shakespeare’s vision of history cast themselves as the greedy, weak, and deceitful Cassius, while the deceived audience shows themselves to be the brutishly, foolish, and incompetent Brutus, the conspirator who is deceived by Cassius.

Along these lines, the title is, of course, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Caesar is the tragic hero. Yes, that means Caesar-Trump is the good guy. The villains of the play, the assassination conspiracy comprised of Judas-goats, try Caesar in absentia (Brutus Act II, scene 1) and find Caesar guilty of their own failings. They find him guilty of being greedy, corrupt, and ambitious. Furthermore, they are completely wrong about Shakespeare’s Caesar. Caesar’s flaw was not ambition. His tragic flaw is pride. Just so, the left has tried President Trump without evidence and have found him guilty of its own sins. President Trump is not the one who is guilty of corruptly colluding with Russian oligarchs. President Trump isn’t the one who sought high office to sell it to the highest bidder. If Trump has a tragic flaw, it is one Americans love because it’s a flaw no other politician has ever dared to have. Trump speaks everything that’s on his mind without regard to audience, tradition, or the potential for the dishonest to twist his words.

Shakespeare did not cheer Julius Caesar’s murder. Instead, like Marc Antony, Shakespeare would have us grieve for him. Shakespeare cast Julius Caesar as the great soul, the genius of his age. His tragic flaw was indeed hubris, not just pride but a pride that exalted itself against the gods. Caesar wouldn’t listen to the omens. He wouldn’t listen to his wife’s dream. His final words before the first knife struck, “I am constant as the Northern Star,” are tragic. They were a metaphor for his life’s work, to be honest and faithful, steady and right on. Despite a corrupt Roman world, despite being surrounded by people of unsound minds who wavered with words or with personal self-interest, Shakespeare’s Caesar kept his promises and his oaths. He kept his word to his soldiers and to his country, no matter how tough the going.

Julius Caesar’s last words, “et tu Brute” (preserved by the Mighty William from the Latin histories) are the most tragic of all. According to some historians, Brutus was like a son to Caesar. Caesar sought nothing but the best for him. That Caesar, struck by twenty-thousand daggers, lived to see this final tragic treachery from one he loved so dearly was, according to Shakespeare’s history, the death blow to the colossus of the age. Trump’s greatness …ah, I mean Caesar’s, was so complete, that the villains of the play confess that they peep about beneath his feet only to find dishonorable graves (Cassius: Act I; scene 2). Indeed the rest of the play shows that Shakespeare felt that full vengeance on the treacherous conspiracy of murders was completely justified.

Do those who cheered the fall of Caesar in New York’s Central Park this week sleep well? Shakespeare’s villains didn’t. Caesar’s ghost haunted them to their graves.

The wrath of Marc Antony on the villains of the play is final and complete. Acts III-V become a classic Hollywood vengeance flick. It’s quite ugly, but not as ugly as Caesar’s murderers, who, like the cheering audience to the “Shakespeare” in the Dark, having dabbed their hands in Caesar’s blood, run through the streets cheering and yelling “Liberty! Freedom! (Act III, scene i).”

Cassius is a bit materialistic, so he yells, “Liberty, freedom, and enfranchisement!” In modernized versions, Cassius should be running around yelling “Liberty, freedom, and free healthcare and cell phones!”

In “Shakespeare” in the Dark’s modern version, the Shakespearean villains are in the audience as well as on stage. While on stage they dip their hands in Caesar’s blood, in the audience they dip their hearts in hate.

Great Caesar’s ghost isn’t part of the play simply for the fun of it, (though it is great theater). No, Caesar’s ghost represents the idea of Caesar. Brutus wanted, more than anything, to defeat the idea of Caesar, the idea of a monarch who would reform Rome. Caesar’s ghost embodied the idea of a divinely appointed monarch, an idea whose time had come.

Yes, it’s shocking. William Shakespeare believed in monarchy, not democracy. Still, it’s hard to blame Shakespeare. The world had not seen a democratic republic for a thousand years, and the last one fell much as Shakespeare describes. It fell through avarice and partisanship and laws that didn’t apply to the strong.

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is renowned for its thematic development of the skill of oratory, the power of propaganda, and the gullibility of the mob. Much of this is catechism to today’s leftists. However, Marc Antony’s speech is a correction demagogues always fear. Mark Antony was the example of the simple soldier whose words triumph because he simply unloads the burden of the truth that weighs upon his heart. Marc Antony breaks all the rules and all the promises he’s made the conspiracy, but the truth triumphs, and lean and hungry, furious Justice is set loose upon the capital of the world.

Despite how our founders have proven Shakespeare’s world view wrong, the theme that you can’t defeat an idea through treacherous, lawless violence is as true today as it ever has been. Liberal Marxists would do well to take the tragedy seriously. Perhaps they might even consider reading the play.

American Fascists are calling American Voters Fascists!

The radical left is now regularly accusing American citizens of succumbing to fascism for supporting Donald Trump. Nothing could be more polarizing. Nothing could be more incorrect. Hitler’s fascism was especially dangerous because of a “cult” of personality. Trump supporters are all about the issues.

Trump supporters, should not allow themselves to remain in the basket of deplorables based only on Trump’s name. It’s far more American to be thrown into the basket of fascist, nationalistic deplorables for clearly stating one’s positions on global trade, national boundaries, and an American first foreign policy.

Of course, calling one’s opponent “Hitler” is the utterly trite example of a propaganda ploy called demonizing the enemy. That’s why every organ of fascist American media and every brilliant American “academic” spews this about Trump followers with such moronic piety (no offense to morons).  Honestly, despite the records of Joseph Stalin, Mau Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot, there is no twentieth century figure more vilified in the Western world than Adolf Hitler. To the Western mind Hitler is the devil.

The majority of millennial snowflakes probably don’t participate knowingly in the fallacy of discussing political personalities instead of political principles. Part of being caught up in fashionable political personalities is the belief that all political discourse is about the personalities, racial identities or gender roles of those on the national scene.

It is, ironically, the American Marxist left, which, damning others, bears the closest resemblance to fascism. From pathetic sit-ins over losing a Senate vote, to ruining cities with their self-righteous riots, the American left circles this cult or that cult of personality like lunatic moths circle to their deaths in the halo of a candle’s false light.

The textbook rise of a leader’s cult of personality includes the use of mass media propaganda. After a summer of wildly incorrect polls and corruptly biased journalism, the left had the audacity to accuse American citizens of voting for Donald Trump because they had succumbed to “fake news.” Yet it is the very leaders of those who decry “fake news” who instigated, paid for, and released a bizarrely salacious example of preposterously fake news to embarrass the duly elected American President nationally and internationally. It’s now plain that the propaganda from the left is primarily for the left. The propaganda isn’t to fool the deplorable Americans who vote national issues. Sadly, it’s a rallying cry for radicals. All the left has left are those who can be led by the glitter of propaganda and lies.

So how does one get one’s neighbor out of the cult? Yes, it’s dangerous, but one has to try to speak patiently to the cultist and, in so doing, opens oneself to every kind of vicious attack by this or that seething mob of fake news conformists. One idea is to let a fake news cultist know that you don’t support Trump’s plan for the country because you like Trump, but you like Trump because he supports your plan for the country.

Nevertheless, it is one’s patriotic duty. Our nation and our national our liberties, when exercised boldly and wisely, increase in strength.

Liberty Comes from the Rule of Law

It’s a paradox, so it is deeply true: liberty, in every incarnation from monetary freedom to personal liberty, comes from the rule of law. For a person to prosper, he or she must live by a code; the higher the code the greater the prosperity. So it is, also, for nations. Ours has become lawless, preferring human whims to the natural law of its founders.

In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 3, 2012, President Obama called a budget obamaproposal of Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Obama and others fail to recognize that there can be a rule of law higher than any one person, so they cannot distinguish the differences between liberty and the doctrines of tyrants, doctrines that excuse utter despotism and abject slavery by refusing to accept laws higher than self.

Social Darwinism was the psychotic delusion of a drunk’s puppet (no disrespect to drunks). For the leader of the free world to associate free market principles with this theology of degenerate racism is proof of the dementia at the core of modern American “intellectualism.” Our academics have become a self-lauding church that parades itself in our national discourse as our national conscience. If we had a national conscience, we’d grind these institutions into powder and scatter them across the brook Kidron.

Generally, Social Darwinism was a Victorian Age rationalization for upper class elites to take from others the fruits of their labors by any means possible. Laws that allowed for economic prosperity could be discarded at will on the basis of racial dominance. Social Darwinism became the intellectual window dressing for thuggish premises like: “We’re strong; you’re not, so we can take what’s yours.” Saying that Social Darwinism is the ethical basis for a free market is comparable to saying free trade is a robber, who, holding a gun to your head, offers you the choice: “Your money or your life!”

Free markets, historically, 71FDiOr4jzLdon’t work this way. They don’t function at all under lawless conditions. Free markets in which wealth “evolves” work on King Arthur’s round table principles. Free markets produce when “Might is for Right” and not when “Might is Right.” Ironically, it is Communism and Socialism that must get rid of the rule of law in order to function (see The Road to Serfdom). In 2012 it is the socialists who are trying to get rid of the rule of law by attacking free markets as lawless.

Human virtue, though, is demonstrably not genetic. Animals excel in their relationship to the physics of earth, air, and water. Human virtue, however, is determined by mankind’s relationship to truth. A fit nation is an ethical nation, and such nations can only exist with ethical citizens.

In this context, a change does occur in free markets. The ethics of a free people are continually expressed in the realm of material prosperity.  The best banks, railroads, airlines and businesses survive and are rewarded for their service to others. But “fittest” does not mean “strongest.” Instead, the entire nation moves from shadows towards light. The greatest societies are laudable for the ethics and strength of the laws by which they govern all their members equally. In return and they are rewarded by an economic strength that flows from teamwork and specialization.

Herbert Spencer cannot take the blame for those who applied the ideas of Social Darwinism to eugenics. However, the implicit link to racism from the days of British Imperialism to the eugenics movement in the United States, gives the ideology of Social Darwinism a hellish connotation.

Obama can get away with labeling every free market proponent a racist because this nation will not hold itself responsible to any law higher than it’s personal convenience.

Cone-headed academicians can get away with cursing the principles of a great nation endowed with liberty from beneath white masks of “intellectual purity” because the septic system of American thought has been so thoroughly corrupt for so long.

We think nothing of this utter rot pouring out from beneath the bathroom door. We’ve lived in this filth so long that we hardly notice it anymore. But we are all utterly contaminated. We reek of sickness and stink of decay. The truth of America has no real friends, and the jackals, smelling our decay, are circling.

Liberty comes fking-arthur-and-the-knights-of-the-round-table-round-table-1-ideas-round-table-1rom the rule of law. This is true for individuals, economies, societies and nations. The darkness of ignorance in every person and in every nation comes from ignoring each person and each law’s relationship to the truth. We are not a nation founded on natural law because we are nature worshippers. We were a nation dedicated to natural law because we read in nature the face of it’s Designer and His higher purposes for every person. We read in nature His eternal call to liberty. Now it seems we prefer tyranny and slavery. Liberty is not a statue. It is the purpose of the Creator for every person. Let’s be part of the change. Let’s stand up and stay valiant for the truth.

Liberals Married the Arab Spring and Spawned ISIS

obama-muslim-300x265

Then senator Barack Obama on a visit to Kenya in 2006

It’s often claimed that the President of the United States is a Muslim and that because of secret ties to the Valerie Jarrett and Huma Abedin, he purposely supported the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among the Arab League, resulting, ultimately in the terrorist state ISIS. Indeed, the pattern of Obama’s failed foreign policies looks very much like a plan to establish ISIS. The greater traitor, the traitor that engulfed the Western media, the U.N. and the entire Obama administration was Harvard Liberalism. The elitist Liberals fell in love with the Arab Spring and spawned ISIS.

The pattern of Obama’s failures and the West’s are extraordinarily extensive. For instance, why did the administration in concert with the U.N. mount a seven-month air campaign to rid Libya of Muammar Gaddafi only to abandon post war Libyan reconstruction? While the mad-dog of the Middle East blamed Al Qaeda for what was, by all accounts, a surprisingly sudden revolution, was he wrong? Recently released emails show that Hillary Clinton was actually interested in arming the Libyan rebellion. If she managed to do this, it would certainly explain the suddenness of Gaddafi’s fall. But Gaddafi wasn’t wrong; Al Qaeda was behind large parts of the military forces supporting the revolution. Why didn’t the United States and it’s allies realize this?  They certainly should have. Wikileaks exposed a memo to the Hillary Clinton state department from the embassy in Tripoli explaining the strong Al Qaeda sympathies there.

Even more strangely, since a West Point study had identified Benghazi as an Al Qaeda hot spot, why wasn’t the U.S.hillary Consulate properly protected, and what was its purpose in the first place? Stories persist and evidence mounts that United States and their agents, at the least, monitored and didn’t stop the arming of Syrian rebels by shipments sent through Benghazi.  These are just two instances in which it appears President Obama intentionally forged policies to bring American enemies weapons. This, though, is an oversimplification. The entire administration (and the United Nations), not all of whom are Muslims,  either supported, participated in, or encouraged these ill advised policies. The Liberals in West senselessly supported the Jihadi Spring because, being senseless Liberals, they thought to themselves, ‘the Jihadi Spring are us!’ They fell in love. The result was ISIS.

Liberals had no idea what they were supporting. Sadly, even now it’s not plain that they have any idea what kind of evil they’ve fostered in the Middle East. The uprising in Egypt’s Tahir Square, for instance, was produced by long-time community organizers who met secretly for weeks and deceived both the media and the Egyptian Security forces into 450herecomesthemobthinking the riot was a genuine reaction to immediate events. This is textbook Liberalism. The New York Times simply frothed in raving praise for the Egyptian rioters who “fused their secular expertise in social networks with a discipline culled from religious movements and combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons.” This quote touches on the involvement of radical Islam as “a discipline culled from religious movements.” For Kirkpatick and Sanger had no idea what they were talking about To them, it was Woodstock gone wild.

All the beloved Liberal themes were on display in Tahrir square including police brutality. The Liberal American media loved it and, some at least, still cherish the memories of that moonlit night when, “The mighty police force collapsed within an hour, fleeing into the night for fear of reprisal. I saw one officer shedding his uniform as he ran (Oh boy!). ” Elitist Liberals met their true love, and even now, at least one still reflected that she (the revolution) was “too perfect” to last.tahir

How could anyone have guessed the Muslim Brotherhood would arise from the chaos? After all, isn’t civil resistance intrinsically good? After all it’s down with “the machine”! Anarchy is freedom! But someone knew, and unless it’s hidden in Hillary’s email, that some one was not President Obama. It was, instead, Osama Bin Laden who was directing his minions to engage in the insurrection with a view towards having “the countries (in revolution) abide by the Sharia’s laws.”

Chaos never brings liberty; it always brings tyranny. That is because anarchy is a state that is by definition even worse than life under a tyrant. That’s because anarchy is, by definition, a state of affairs in which justice among mankind has been completely suspended. The civil unrest in the Middle East was not the American Revolution, but appeared to the Harvard Liberals to be their one true love, the Aphrodite of the 1960’s radicals. In their purple hazed-over love affair of the Jihadi Spring, they had no idea they were being manipulated by a repressive, cynical ideology that fully understood Liberalism and knew exactly how to exploit it.  And that is exactly the danger today. Liberals still can’t call the Islamic State radical Islam.

In Arab state after Arab state the elements of radical Islam blended in with the traditional ideologues of the West’s radical Left. Is it possible that elements of radical Islam have infiltrated a very Liberal far left American “regime” that, like Islamic radicals, seeks anarchy, lawlessness, and social unrest? Certainly, but it is Harvard Liberalism that calls anarchy liberty that is the real danger. Without this madness ISIS would not have reached ascendancy nor maintained it this long. Elitist, mindless Liberalism kills. Never forget!

 

 

Obama’s Middle East Failures Look Like a Plan to Establish ISIS

Displaced Sunni people, who fled the violence in the city of Ramadi, arrive at the outskirts of Baghdad, April 17, 2015. REUTERS/Stringer

Displaced Sunni people, who fled the violence in the city of Ramadi, arrive at the outskirts of Baghdad, April 17, 2015

An incompetence so vast that it could lead President Obama and his staff to limit air strikes on ISIS to twelve  in the lead up to Ramadi’s fall is so hard to grasp that it’s easier to believe  in a strategy of purposely allowing the Islamic State to establish itself in Iraq. Surely that can’t be the case.

Are we to believe that it is possible that the President was playing golf as Ramadi fell? Are we to believe that Liberalism and the propaganda of the left could foist this level of irresponsibility on the American electorate and the free world? The other option is to believe in a bizarre plot to bring change no one can believe in to the Middle East. The disaster and the human tragedy we are now witnessing in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen far outweighs the human cost even in the worst days of the American invasion of Iraq.

Here is the tale of monstrous arrogance and personal cowardice so profound and of errors so horrid, that one is tempted to think that the United States foreign policy is bent on establishing ISIS in the Middle East:

First, there is the President’s unwillingness to work with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to get a status of forces agreement in 2008. We could have stayed in Iraq. We didn’t have to leave, but it was election season, and President Obama had promised his base. The American president abandoned the hard won victories of countless brave American men and women. He abandoned the alliances these same men and women had earned through their courage and comIraq-ISIS-mappassion. It was a horrendous failing.

Our second national failure involved the President’s interest in the Muslim Brotherhood and the American media’s embrace of the Arab Spring. All of this led to insurrection in Syria,  the failed state of Libya, a secret arms flow of some kind and, perhaps, even to the attack at Benghazi. Classified papers only obtained by a Judicial Watch law suit declare that the CIA and the MIA predicted in August of 2012 that the fall of Libya would lead to the rise of ISIS. Weapons out of Libya, not directly tied to the United States were pouring into the wrong hands in Syria. Right or wrong, Senators McCain and Graham, who are not Muslims, tried to do something about the deteriorating conditions in February of 2012. Hence, it’s logical to assume that if the CIA and the MIA didn’t brief the President, Senators McCain and Graham did. But it was an election year. The liberal administration was so sensitive about appearances that it refused to defend our own consulate in Libya. What was going on at the Benghazi consulate anyway? Why did the Turkish ambassador visit just hours before the fatal attack? Were we “running guns” to Syrian revolutionaries who then became the core of ISIS, or were we trying to intervene and buy weapons back before they got to ISIS?

Then there were all those pathetic red lines on Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

Half measures and an administration afraid of its own shadow is always the fault of American Liberalism. It’s the ideology of easy-way out, cut-and-run solutions. Is that what America endorsed in 2008 and in 2012? If America elected a coward on purpose in 2008 because it was “tired of the war,” we’ve found the evil enemy in the White House and it is us.

On the other hand, the use of lies and propaganda in 2012 casts this important national choice in another light. Had the nation learned that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was planned weeks in advance and had nothing to do with a YouTube video, would the outcome of the election been different? If the United States media had reported that the Obama administration lied about the causes of the Benghazi debacle, would that have mattered? What if Osama Bin Laden’s letter about the role he ordered Radical Islam in to play in the Arab Spring had not been suppressed? Would the United States have been able to assert itself in time to reduce the human carnage in the Middle East?

Is ISIS the result of an evil plot or of an incorrigibly incompetent Commander-in Chief that Americans elected on purpose because they were simply “tired” of doing the right thing?

Consider a more recent example of a rarely noted cowardly act of the American President. In 2014 the President attempted to bully congress into an Authorization for the Use of Force Agreement engineered to keep future presidents from using ground forces in Iraq. Oh, President Obama’s defenders can claim it was simply a tactic designed to save the U.S. from being dragged into another ground war, but coincidentally, the 2014 authorization would have allowed the president to hide behind a senate filibuster for the rest of his term. Now he can’t. He still has complete authorization to send in ground forces. It’s on his desk. If he doesn’t send these troops in, he will be forever remembered for his sacrifice of innocent lives upon the idolatrous altar of radicalized American Liberalism. For one, I tend to ISIS is not a clever plot designed to hurt Conservative adversaries in Israel. From Russia to China, from Iraq to Iran, this administration has allowed itself to be bullied by thugs into actions that are treacherous to our allies and treasonous to our national interests abroad.

The pacifist, appeasement mentality of American Liberalism has been dominant at least since Carter. It has led us Iraq 3 state solution map 2006to be not ourselves, not America. It is a traitor to our founders’ vision of a America. It is the enemy of Reagan’s vision of America as the city on the hill, the hope of mankind. It’s easy to hear black helicopters and assume the secret enemy of America is a Trojan Horse lodged in the White House. But American Liberalism is the real enemy. It should be given no quarter ever again. Liberalism’s willingness to subscribe to a relativistic morality tolerates tyrants. It has, in effect, as a result of it’s hateful blindness, essentially given outright support for establishing the Islamic State in the Middle East.

Our national incompetence in the Middle East has been so overwhelming that our enemies have even suggested that the American administration secretly planned the rise of ISIS. Recently, an Iranian official claimed that Biden’s 2006 three-state solution for Iraq has been Obama’s unspoken, unreported U.S. foreign policy all along.  The weight of the evidence also suggests that the recent fall of Ramadi was all but orchestrated. Not only were air strikes limited to 12. In the weeks leading up to the fall of Ramadi, the United States saw the military build up and did nothing. Then there was the disinformation blaming the fall of Ramadi on Iraqis cowardice. The Iraqis claimed they lacked weaponry despite repeated requests. This follows the Benghazi pattern of blaming the attack on a YouTube video when the disaster was largely the administrations failure to respond to military intelligence reports. Was Obama playing golf, or is his Liberal hatred of the military so great that it has led to foreign policy fiasco upon foreign policy fiasco making the pattern appear to be high treason?

The larger pattern indicates that it is American Liberalism that is still the real enemy. Obama is incompetent because of Liberal arrogance that has decided that American military force is always wrong. It’s an arrogance that coddles both criminals and tyrannic criminals. It’s an arrogance that abhors the rule of law and the voices of “little people” clinging to guns and religion. Let these disasters become a rallying cry for generations. Give no quarter. Never forget! Teach and teach until America knows its enemy and destroys it forever.